1961 (4) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of Section 19(3) of Slum Areas Act, 1956, ensuring fairness and public interest

Jyoti Pershad Versus The Administrator for The Union territory of Delhi

The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 19(3) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, finding it did not violate Articles 14 ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 19(3) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.3. Delegation of legislative power.4. Reasonableness of restrictions on the right to hold property.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 19(3) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956:The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 19(3) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, arguing that it vested unguided, unfettered, and uncontrolled power in an executive officer to withhold permission to execute eviction decrees. They claimed that this arbitrary power violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court, however, found that the Act provided adequate guidance through its preamble and operative provisions. The preamble described the Act's purposes: improvement and clearance of slum areas and protection of tenants in such areas from eviction. The Court concluded that the Act did not vest arbitrary power in the competent authority but rather provided sufficient guidance to ensure the discretion was exercised in line with the Act's objectives.2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:The petitioners argued that Section 19(3) of the Act violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. They contended that the power conferred on the competent authority was arbitrary and discriminatory, thus violating the equal protection clause of Article 14. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Act's provisions and purpose provided sufficient guidance to the competent authority. The Court also addressed the reasonableness of the restriction under Article 19(1)(f), concluding that the restriction was reasonable and justified in the interests of the general public, particularly the slum dwellers.3. Delegation of Legislative Power:The petitioners contended that Section 19(3) of the Act amounted to an excessive delegation of legislative power. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the legislature had sufficiently indicated its purpose and laid down the policy in the Act. The Court emphasized that it is not necessary for the legislature to detail every application of the law to specific cases. The guidance provided by the Act's preamble and operative provisions was deemed adequate to ensure that the delegation of power was not excessive.4. Reasonableness of Restrictions on the Right to Hold Property:The petitioners argued that the restriction imposed by Section 19(3) of the Act on their right to hold property was unreasonable and not saved by Article 19(5) of the Constitution. The Court disagreed, stating that the restriction was reasonable and had a rational connection with the Act's objective of eliminating slums and protecting slum dwellers from eviction. The Court noted that the restriction was temporary and aimed at providing interim protection to slum dwellers until they could be relocated to better accommodations. The Court also highlighted the provision for appeals, which served as an additional safeguard to ensure the policy of the Act was carried out.Conclusion:The Court found that Section 19(3) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, was constitutional and did not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The delegation of power to the competent authority was not excessive, and the restriction on the right to hold property was reasonable and justified in the interests of the general public. The petitions were dismissed.